In California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Bourne (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 89, the appellate court addressed the question of whether "an exclusion from coverage for bodily injury to an insured in a policy of automobile insurance renders the policy inapplicable to a cross-complaint against an insured for indemnity by a concurrent tortfeasor." (Bourne, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at pp. 90-91.) Shirley Bourne was involved in a vehicle accident with Robert O'Connell. Shirley's daughter Chandra was seriously injured in the accident. Shirley was the named insured and Chandra an insured under a CSAA automobile liability policy. Chandra filed a personal injury action alleging her mother and O'Connell both negligently caused her to be injured. O'Connell filed a cross-complaint against Shirley seeking partial indemnity for damages for which he, as a joint tortfeasor with Shirley, might become obligated to pay for Chandra's injuries. CSAA then filed this action for declaratory relief. (Id. at p. 91.) The CSAA policy's coverage clause provided that CSAA would "'pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages'" because of bodily injury to a person arising from the use of the owned automobile. The CSAA policy had an exclusion clause stating that the policy does not apply for "bodily injury to any insured." (Bourne, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 91.) On appeal, defendants conceded "the action by Chandra against Shirley is within the exclusion" but claimed that the exclusion "is ambiguous with respect to CSAA's obligation to defend Shirley against the third party action by O'Connell." (Bourne, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 92.) The appellate court rejected this argument, stating that "the language in the policy is unambiguous on this point." (Ibid.)